I am a parent judge and this is my first time Judging.

I don't need to be added to the email chain. I am judging more on presentation and debating skills. I know the topic well enough that I will likely already know what you are referring to.

I am okay with a faster pace but DO NOT spread or I may not understand you.

I have experience in congress, pf, and extemp

Make sure your hooks are engaging.

Restate your school and last name.

Signposting is always a plus.

I will dock points if you restate arguments with no real addition to the argument.

Enjoy and have fun.

I am a typical PF judge. No real paradigm since PF is not plan or value driven. I like to see well developed arguments and effective speaking. I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonable.

I am the Speech/Debate teacher and coach at The Colony High School in Texas and although I've judged quite a few tournaments over the past four years, I consider myself always learning about coaching and judging debate and speech events. I pledge to do my best to judge events fairly and accurately. I appreciate articulate and easy to understand speakers and do not like spreading. I may ask you to slow down if you are speaking too fast so that I may adequately judge your speech/performance. I will not vote on disclosure. I may disclose results to you after your performance or may choose for you to review my comments on Tabroom. I consider myself a coach first and judge second - so if you ask how you did after a round/performance, you will hear words of encouragement or gentle critique. I want a judge to do the same for my students.

Know that I am listening intently to your performance or for the case you present in your argument and wish everyone the best of luck!

“As a coach member of the National Speech & Debate Association, I pledge to uphold the highest standards of humility, equity, integrity, respect, leadership, and service in pursuit of excellence.”

In round what makes a great performer or speaker to me is someone that can effectively control the room as well as truly understands the meaning behind there words and the power they have. Please reach out to me if you have questions about ballots or are interested in competing on the college level of forensics. Below are a few of my competitive accomplishments just for reference if curious.

If you get me in LD/CX I am very traditional I understand allot of the arguments but I will not have the background you are wanting for very meta things. So if you do run theory, a K or anything else you will have to do extra work in justifying it to me in round.

My ballots tend to have more critiques and or suggestions than glowing responses. I do apologize if my ballot comes off rude I do my best to not come off rude, but I like to give an in-depth ballot that you can walk away with that can be used to help develop your cases and or performance that isn't just "Great performance, tough round!".

Currently I coach the IE portion of the University of North Texas’s team. Prior I competed at San Antonio Community college. I am also a former national outrounder in multiple events across all 4 years of collegiate competition across the National Forensic Association(NFA) and American Forensic Association(AFA). Email: Aarondelgado@my.unt.edu

I have been a coach and consultant for the past 28 years and done every debate format available stateside and internationally. I also have taught at Stanford, ISD, Summit, UTD, UT, and Mean Green camps as a Curriculum Director and Senior Instructor. I think no matter what form of debate that you do, you must have a narrative that answers critical questions of who, what, when, where, why, how, and then what, and so what. Debaters do not need to be shy and need to be able to weigh and prioritize the issues of the day for me in what I ought to be evaluating. Tell me as a judge where I should flow things and how I ought to evaluate things. That's your job.

If you would like for me to look at a round through a policy lens, please justify to me why I ought to weigh that interpretation versus other alternatives. Conversely, if you want me to evaluate standards, those need to be clear in their reasoning why I ought to prioritize evaluation in that way.

In public forum, I need the summary to be a line by line comparison between both worlds where the stark differences exist and what issues need to be prioritized. Remember in the collapse, you cannot go for everything. Final focus needs to be a big pic concept for me. Feel free to use policy terms such as magnitude, scope, probability. I do evaluate evidence and expect you all to do the research accordingly but also understand how to analyze and synthesize it. Countering back with a card is not debating. The more complicated the link chain, the more probability you may lose your judge. Keep it tight and simple and very direct.

In LD, I still love my traditional Value and VC debate. I do really like a solid old school LD round. I am not big on K debate only because I think the K debate has changed so much that it becomes trendy and not a methodology that is truly educational and unique as it should be. Uniqueness is not the same as obscurity. Now, if you can provide a good solid link chain and evaluation method of the K, go for it. Don't assume my knowledge of the literature though because I don't have that amount of time in my life but I'm not above understanding a solidly good argument that is properly formatted. I think the quickest way to always get my vote is to write the ballot for me and also keep it simple. Trickery can make things messy. Messy debaters usually get Ls. So keep it simple, clean, solid debate with the basics of claim, warrant, impact, with some great cards and I'll be happy.

I don't think speed is ever necessary in any format so speak concisely, know how to master rhetoric, and be the master of persuasion that way. Please do not be rude to your opponent. Fight well and fight fair. First reason for me to down anyone is on burdens. Aff has burden of proof, neg has burden to clash unless it is WSD format where burdens exist on both sides to clash. If you have further questions, feel free to ask specifics.

In plat events, structure as well as uniqueness (not obscurity) is key to placing. Organization to a speech as well as a clear call to order is required in OO, Info, Persuasive. In LPs, answer the question if you want to place. Formatting and structure well an avoid giving me generic arguments and transitional phrases. Canned intros are not welcome in my world usually and will be frowned upon. Smart humor is always welcome however.

I want you all to learn, grow, have fun, and fight fair. Best of luck and love one another through this activity!!

Background: I was a high school debater, extemper, and orator back in the 1990s. I became a debate coach in 2003; I coach all the events.

Everyone: Be as polite and professional as possible.

For debate events: No spreading; speak at a normal, conversational speed. I will deduct speaker points and you will likely lose the round because you've made it too difficult for me to understand what you're saying. I shouldn't have to read a copy of your case to figure out your arguments; I should be able to flow it based on what I hear in your performance. In rebuttals, I need you to signpost the part of the case before making your argument so I know where it goes on my flow; otherwise, your arguments don't count because I don't know what you're attacking or defending. Give me voters in your last speech. Do not waste time running disclosure theory; I will not vote based on it.

For congress: Be prepared before the tournament; I have no sympathy for students not having their speeches ready before the round begins. Don't take excessive breaks. We must meet the minimum time for the round while also keeping the tournament on schedule. If you think the Presiding Officer makes a mistake, deal with it immediately; otherwise, it's too late and we have to move on.

For IEs: ranking can come down to small details; bring your best! I like clever introductions that get my attention with personal stories, jokes, etc. In poetry, the cadence of the verse matters to me; if your poetry performance sounds like a prose performance, you may rank lower compared to others who perform poetry as spoken word. For extemp, the depth of your analysis will impact your ranking.

I competed in Policy Debate and Extemp at the Varsity level in High School where I lettered and was awarded Distinguished in the NFL. I also competed in numerous public speaking events and contests both in an academic and business environment. Hosted a radio program, acted in legitimate theater, commercial stage productions, conducted commercial seminars nationwide, and acted in motion pictures and a member of SAG.

I look for developed, effective, public speaking delivery utilizing your personal style. I do not like spreading in any Debate. I reward logical arguments, persuasive rhetoric, solid evidence based on quality not quantity. You must be able to convince me to win the ballot. I reward those who can adapt their arguments as needed to make their point. Don't rely on reading a manuscript from a computer without fleshing out the information as appropriate. I reward debaters who are well informed on the topic and are able to apply evidence that supports their contention.

Decorum, respect, and courtesy, are required from all contestants. Bullies will not prevail or be tolerated. All students are respected regardless of their culture, background, or individual preferences.

(paradigm written by my son)

I am a parent judge, this is my first tournament judging any type of debate.

No theory, K, anything that is not traditional public forum debate.

I take good notes, but I absolutely can not understand you if you talk too fast, keep it to a conversational pace.

I trust that you will keep time of speeches and prep, yours as well as your opponents if you would like.

I will believe most arguments, it is up to your opponents to point out the flaws. The exception is if the argument is illogical, doesn't have a clear link chain, or is plain wrong. Truth > Tech (heavily).

Last time for new evidence is first summary only when defending your case.

It's okay to drop some arguments and rebuttals to further your more important ones, in fact I encourage it. Unless there is a turn on your case, you do need respond to that. Quality > Quantity.

Signpost very clearly, if I don't know where you are, I simply won't flow the argument.

I will not listen to cross examination for arguments, bring it up in a speech if it's important. I will listen to ensure that you are being civil and for speaker points.

Clearly extend arguments through your speeches - not doing so risks me forgetting it and thinking it's new.

In summary and final focus especially, give very clear voters. The more clear, the more likely I am to vote for you, even if you are losing the round on the flow. Be convincing.

Anything racist, sexist, homophobic, harmful or insulting to your opponents, etc. will result in a loss of speaker points, how many depending on the severity. An extreme enough case will lead to you losing the round automatically and me contacting tab.

I'm a primarily Congress judge but I also have PF experience as well. I've competed in Congress for lots of tournaments and have a good amount of experience. For all events I judge based off uniqueness, presentation, and effectiveness of your arguments.

Congress:

Congress rounds are long, especially when you aren't competing, it's necessary that when you go up and speak you leave a lasting impression on me as a judge. If not you will often get a low ranking.

Having clarity and confidence when you speak is crucial, I should want to believe you rather, and I shouldn't have to try and piece your arguments together. When you go up there and speak your arguments should be solid and prepared, like a good finished product. I welcome humor especially since rounds often get long and arduous without some laughs. Remember debate is supposed to be a fun event so make it fun.

For your content you must have good evidence, even for refutations if you are directly clashing with an opponent. I'll take analytical arguments but they should be clear and concise. If you are giving a sponsorship speech I should hear your sources and good strong arguments. I hold sponsor speakers to a higher standard when they construct their arguments since they lay the foundation of the debate. For responses, these should be clear and concise, my experience in PF has led me to prefer refutations that often completely demolish an argument, but remember you're going after the argument rather than the person, so please form your refutations around that. I take evidence credibility into account, if you give me a wikipedia source I'm not going to count it as evidence so please don't. Finally, during crystal or other mid-late round speeches I love weighing, but you must do it right. If you don't weigh properly I will move you down, but if you weigh well that will move you very high up, so take the risk you want.

I prefer that the last speaker in debate deliver a crystal speech (a Speech summarizing the debate and explaining why a side won). I am sympathetic to those with low precedence and will be more lenient towards crystal speakers. If you deliver a well formed and clear crystal that does it's job I will vote you very high up.

Lastly, POs, I will vote high if they do a good job controlling the flow of the debate and moving efficiently, also I encourage some humor.

Anyone that volunteers to give a sponsor or PO when no one else wants to will most likely leave a positive image in my mind, so take that into consideration. Additionally switching sides so everyone can speak.

I am a parent judge. Focus on good public speaking skills and analytical argumentation with supporting evidence.

This is my first time judging debate. Please speak slow enough that I do not have to read a speech doc, DO NOT spread or I will not understand you; I will not flow your arguments and they will not be considered. Considering an argument "sticky" is taking a risk that I will forget about it (mainly for summary).

DO NOT be homophobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or discriminatory in any way. If you are rude or disrespectful I will vote you down.

Experience: Parent Judge

My son participates in Congress and Extemporaneous Speaking, so I am familiar with the basics of both events.

Congress: In Congress, I rank based on how well you understand the topic and how clearly you explain it. Delivery matters, but not as much as the quality of your information. You need to warrant your points effectively and provide a clear link between your arguments and their impacts. For PO’s prelims and semis, if you keep the round moving and ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak, I will give you a last break or higher, depending on the other speakers in the round. In Finals, it's all about speed and time management, and this is where you can throw out formalities. As a PO, I will rank you in Finals relative to the other speakers. For me, PO’s will never receive first place, but that doesn’t mean you can’t rank highly.

Extemporaneous Speaking: In this event, delivery is key. I want to be so engaged that I almost forget to write your ballot. If you can do that, you’ll rank highly. (And if you get a boring topic, make it interesting!)

For other events, I’m not as knowledgeable, and I apologize for that, but I will do my best with the information I have.

Hi,

My name is Clay Parker, I did Speech for four years n the Dallas, TX area. I now compete for the University of Texas at Austin and help coach for NSU in Florida. For all intents and purposes, treat me as a lay judge. I have been around debate through my almost eight years but rarely competed within it.

Email: clayparker@utexas.edu

Judging Philosophy:

- I won't look at a card unless you tell me to do so!

- Impact calc is the easiest way to win and the most important part of PF. Just please explain your impact clearly with a fully supported link chain to it and weigh and you will the round. I expect clear weighing in the round and it is beneficial for y'all to do so, if you don't weigh I may default to my own mechanisms and you may not like that. ---> your final focus should just write my ballot for me

- summary and final focus should mirror each other ALWAYS. Please don't make me play a game of I SPY on the ballot, it will much easier for you to win if you as a team know exactly what you are going for and mirror each other

- I would really prefer clear full extensions. I don't simply want just "extend Jones 12" because that doesn't really tell me much. Instead, extend Jones, the warrant, and any necessary offense from it. Explain to me why Jones is important.

- warranted responses >>> blippy card dumps

*I am not super versed in progressive debate like Ks you can run them but I may need a lil while to comprehend the argument. I am not a super big fan of theory (disclosure specifically), I have a very high threshold for it, so if you go for it make sure you are right.

Simply put, speak so that I may understand you clearly.

I competed in Speech & Debate from 2010-2013. I was a DI State Champion in 2013. I was a NSDA Poetry Finalist in 2013. I was also a UIL State Poetry Finalist in 2012 and 2013. I am also a OO Semifinalist at the Harvard National Speech & Debate Tournament.

The first that I am concern with in all of the speech and debate events is this continued reference to the existence of an off time road map. The time requires are specific to each event and speakers should stop using that because I do not recognize or grace then an exception they are appropriating. I tend to view myself as conservative and traditional judge. When judging LD I taught this for twenty years and I tend to focus on intent of resolution and the burdens of each speaker. I don't favor critiques nor do I want the negative to present a counter plan. When I judge PFD, this event is not a mini-policy round and I have a hard time understanding why it is trending towards that. the design of this event was never about spreading it is about persuading a judge to listen to a political discussion and value the organization, substance and then evidence support the pro or con position. Jargon specific to Policy is not a value to me in this event. When judging Policy I do not just pay attention to stock issues, I also think that I occasionally view a round through the eyes of a policy maker. I truly enjoy teams that are organized and can articulate clearly the impacts of evidence and connect the evidence appropriately to their position. If you claim a comparative advantage, then be prepared to support it with evidence that actually links clearly back to a specific piece of evidence your opponent used. I do not mind voting on topicality, however the wording of the resolution is flexible and your analysis of terminology and application within the round can make even a topical case susceptible to a no vote if you neglect to properly articulate why you are significant or substantial with adequate evidence or proof. I prefer to hear arguments proving the disadvantages or why a counter-plan can solves and I don’t think that everything leads to total destruction. I am not overly fond of kritik’s but I will listen and I have voted on them when they are well presented and supported by evidence and understood by both team members. I flow fairly well but, if you use speed you must have clarity of speech. I think the spread is not really necessary if your research and understanding of the resolution is sufficient. When I am judging World School debate, I want both teams to responds to points of order or to request that they address them once they have completed their presentation. Finally, Congress speakers should observe the procedures associated with UIL and NSDA, the pro and con are equally worthy of my time and attention and I the pro/con presentations delivered with passion and conviction, a spirited question and answer period and smooth flow of the chamber.

Howdy y'all!

My name is Matthew and I'm a current sophomore at UT Austin (Hook 'em!). I primarily did Info and OO but I also have experience in Impromptu, Extemp, Congress, and Prose (don't ask...). Feel free to call me Matthew, Matt, judge (please not Mr. Rippin lolol)

Public Address Events:

Extemp:

• The most important thing for me is to see you answer the question. You have a lot of liberty in how you do so, just make sure to stick to the original intent of what you were asked.
• Every part of your speech is important. In your intro, include some kind of hook that grabs/keeps my attention, have some context that lays the foundation for why the question is being asked, explain why it's important to ask the question, and outline your main points. Make sure each main point is distinct and contains roughly the same amount of evidence/analysis. In your conclusion, restate the question / your answer and wrap your speech up nicely, preferably with a tieback to your intro.
• You should have a good quantity and variety of credible sources. I also like when speakers qualify their sources; i.e. [person], a [occupation] at [organization], stated on [date] that...
• Assume I know nothing about your topic. I really appreciate speakers who include specific examples and explain everything simply but thoroughly.
• Relax and have fun! Humor is a great way to maintain engagement and break up the seriousness of your speech!

OO:

• I really hope to see you have fun and be creative (in your approach to your topic, how your structure your speech, etc.)!
• Your problem should be universal (totally cool to use specific personal experiences or the exclusive experiences of a particular group of people, just make sure to address the generalizable, underlying roots of the issue).
• I really, really, really, really want to see a personal connection. By the end of your performance I should have a good idea of why you chose this topic to deliver a 10-minute speech on. This does not mean you have to / should trauma dump.
• I have no preference for how you structure your speech as long as you explain what the problem is and it's causes/effects/solutions
• The best solutions are those that are specific (break it down into steps), realistic (something I could actually implement into my day-to-day life), and direct (i.e. not write to your local gov rep about implementing X change)

Info:

• I really hope to see you have fun and be creative (in your approach to your topic, how your structure your speech, etc.)!
• Truly structure your speech however you want, just make sure each main point is unique.
• This is not as significant as in OO but I'd still like to see why your topic interests / is important to you
• The first time I see your speech I would really like to learn something that I did not already now
• Visuals are absolutely not required but if you have them: quality/simplicity > quantity/complexity. I am more impressed by those that actually add value to your speech (i.e. help you explain/demonstrate a certain context, data visualization, etc.) than super techy/aesthetic ones that just serve as distractions.

Interp

• Be authentic; remember that these are real people's stories you are telling
• If you have multiple characters, each should have their own distinct personality, voice, facial expressions, gestures, etc.
• I really like to see you tell a full story (think Freytag's pyramid)
• In your intro have some kind of thesis regarding application or call to action (it isn't enough to just say 'this piece is about x')

PF/LD/CX

• Lay but I try to flow
• The max speed I'll be able to follow is probably slightly faster than conversational
• I'd prefer if you debated the topic but if you go for something else make sure to really explain it well and why it's a reason I should vote for you
• I don't know a ton of debate terminology
• I won't look at arguments brought up towards the end of the debate if your opponent doesn't have a chance to respond to them
• Warrant and weigh

Congress

• Speaking = 70% | Content = 30%
• I think it's better to not give a speech than rehash a previous representative's speech
• I'd like to see every speech after the first cycle have clash
• Make sure to tie back to specific parts of the legislation
• Negation speakers should be proving net harms, not just saying passing won't do anything
• I look pretty favorably on POs as long as you keep the chamber running and make sure everyone has a fair/equal opportunity to speak

No spreading, I decide the round on value. Theory is ok if its not too abstract.